For reasons too boring to go into here, I found myself still driving home from a delayed appointment when I should have been back in time for kick off, so radio was the only option for the first hour of the game. Claridge is far from my favourite radio talker, apart from his haphazard diction he hardly ever seems to finish a sentence, and his habit of saying “Just look at that” in astonished surprise – he did it about five times during the MK Dons v Manchester United first half – is singularly inappropriate when all the listener can actually look at is the volume control knob or the view through the windscreen.

What Claridge lacks in finesse he generally makes up for in enthusiasm and dogged reasoning, however, and in a forthright exchange with the studio anchorman Mark Chapman at half-time the pair came close to the heart of the whole Manchester United conundrum. Claridge’s theory, expressed vehemently throughout the first half, was that United’s players had no idea how to play the 3-5-2 system. Either the manager had not explained it well enough, or he assumed the team would have a more instinctive grasp of what was required (he is from the Netherlands, after all) or the players he had selected were fundamentally unsuited to being asked to shift position and adopt a new system. So, basically, for Claridge it was Van Gaal’s fault.

Fair enough, retorted Chapman from the studio, but it’s not Van Gaal who keeps giving the ball away, is it? It is unlikely the coach asked his players to keep hitting passes to the opposition or get caught in possession. The players are the ones making the mistakes, they should take a large part of the blame. The players don’t understand the system, roared back Claridge, possibly with an inference that Chappers might not either.

The wing-backs are supposed to provide the fluidity in the system, getting forward as often as possible, with the central member of the back three staying deep to provide cover if required. United were not doing that.

Their wing-backs were playing like full-backs, and the back three was flat.

So, in effect, you had a flat back five against Milton Keynes, with an outnumbered midfield and two isolated strikers. The reason passes went astray is that United did not know where to find team-mates.

I paraphrase somewhat, but you get the idea. Van Gaal must have noticed something similar too. What struck most people is that there was no real need for United to make wholesale changes for the Capital One Cup. They are not facing a demanding season in Europe and the present campaign is only a fortnight old. If Van Gaal is intent on sticking with his new formation, this was a good opportunity to fine-tune it, against supposedly weaker opposition, with the players who will be required to implement it for the rest of the season. It might be occurring to Van Gaal right now that players in the English Premier League are not quite as adaptable or tactically aware as players he has coached elsewhere, and competitive games that allow scope for experimentation are not to be sneezed at. Van Gaal may not have been too bothered about the Capital One Cup, but he has to be concerned by a 4-0 hiding so early on his watch, and he has to take a share of the blame. If he was determined to play the kids, it might have been better to send them out in a formation to which they were more accustomed.

Ideally a club should play the same system at all levels, and if Van Gaal is wedded to 3-5-2 or 3-4-1-2 he should try to encourage everyone at the club to become used to it. Yet with one point from their first two league outings and facing a potential banana skin in an early season knockout competition, United’s position was far from ideal, and some of those kids will be lucky to get a meaningful game for the rest of the season now that they are out of the Capital One Cup.

Van Gaal’s situation is even less ideal as a result, and United travel to Burnley on Saturday under more pressure than they would have liked as they search for a first win of the season. Already Van Gaal is beginning to appreciate why the club are paying him so much money. It is not for his coaching expertise after all, at least not yet. It is for his impeccable sang froid as the television cameras close in on his stuffed frog expression, searching in vain for a flicker of emotion or annoyance as the players in his eyeline but out of shot mess up once again. Van Gaal is playing his part marvellously so far, bigging up the United supporters’ loyalty in adversity and making a point of signing autographs on the way out, but he is here to be judged by events on the pitch, not for his PR skills on the sidelines. Good will is not infinite. He will have been hoping for a better start than this, and around now is the time for him to begin changing things.

Such as the system, for instance. Ángel di María is an excellent acquisition, though an odd choice at £60m for a team committed to playing with wing-backs. Van Gaal appeared to admit as much when he referred to Di María’s wing play and suggested he would have to see whether he would need to change the system to accommodate the Argentinian. From his words after the MK Dons defeat it appears Di María’s principal attraction to Van Gaal is that he reminds him of Arjen Robben. That is high praise indeed, and United fans should be quite excited, except that in Holland’s successful World Cup campaign Van Gaal deployed Robben as a free runner up front with Robin van Persie, tweaking the rest of his side in support of those two proven matchwinners. To do the same at United would leave the question of who steps into the Wesley Sneijder role. Wayne Rooney or Juan Mata? Shinji Kagawa or Adnan Januzaj?

Van Gaal could keep his present front three, and slot Di María on the left of a midfield trio where his defensive abilities could be utilised in addition to his sparkling running with the ball, though with Ander Herrera likely to be alongside him that would leave Ashley Young, Antonio Valencia, Darren Fletcher, Tom Cleverley and goodness knows how many others scrapping for the remaining place. Plus, United have a tradition for attacking from the flanks that Di María would be only too happy to extend, once he gets over his sadness at leaving Real Madrid. Perhaps that should be if he gets over his sadness at his treatment at the Bernabéu. Full marks to the player for honesty, but the most expensive ever British signing hardly struck the required “can do” note by whining that he never wished to leave his previous club. Even Mesut Özil was more circumspect than that. Özil and Di María are both in the top-10 most expensive British buys, so this seems a good time to reflect how many of those have provided value for money.

Leaving out Alexis Sánchez and Eliaquim Mangala, who have yet to find their feet in the Premier League, only Sergio Agüero (£38m) stands out as an unqualified success, with perhaps Özil (£42m) and Fernandinho (£34m) deserving the benefit of the doubt. The remaining four on the list cost a combined £154m, and the names of Fernando Torres, Mata, Andy Carroll and Robinho should act as a warning to anyone who believes a purchase price alone can act as a reliable guide. Remarkably, United have spent almost that amount this summer alone (their total outlay is around £130m) and one or more captures before deadline might take them close to the £150m mark.

Burnley, naturally, have spent only buttons and washers since gaining promotion, and have barely enough quality players for each position. But they do know how to play as a team, and on Saturday that could be quite important.